Strange

Nice nit-picking!

So, a black hole is defined by the event horizon, which is the [spherical] surface where nothing, not even light, can escape. The radius of the event horizon is proportional to the mass of the black hole, so is large (for 1 solar mass it is about 3km). The singularity is what happens when you apply General Relativity to the internals of the black hole. It means that curvature and density become infinite. I don't think anyone considers to represent reality. We probably need a theory that is able to take quantum effects into account in these extreme circumstances to have a better idea of what happens inside a black hole. There is no evidence a singularity doesn't exist (we haven't yet directly observed a black hole and wouldn't be able to see what goes on inside anyway!)

The answers are mainly in the first paragraph There are a large number of stars created and dying in the centre of the galaxy, because of the large amounts of gas and dust there, so there should be many black holes. They can't be detected directly (because they are black holes) so this study looks for indirect evidence that they are there.

For those interested in the the original topic, there is a good overview of this work here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-milky-way-is-hiding-tens-of-thousands-of-black-holes-d7a2930fed1a

That doesn't make much sense. Energy is not necessarily connected with movement. And it isn't energy that is conserved, it is mass+energy. And, on the scale of the universe, it isn't clear that energy is conserved anyway. What does dialectical materialism have to say about that? But there is a much deeper significance to conservation laws generally. They are a consequence of particular symmetries. And it seems that symmetries underly pretty much everything in physics.

It would expand anyway. Dark energy accelerates the rate of expansion. If you go from 3D to 2D you have one fewer dimensions, not a 4th dimension. (Remember 2 is less than 3.) The fourth dimension is time. We don't know if space is finite of infinite. Space has always been completely full of matter and energy.

The latter seem to have worked already.

We have observed objects that are sufficiently dense that they can only be explained by black holes. I don’t think anyone considers singularities to represent physical reality. It just indicates that the current theory doesn’t work under those conditions.

The amount of dark matter required would be visible (absorbing/scattering light) etc. And the distribution of dark matter doesn’t match what would be produced by ordinary matter.

One task of philosophy is to analyse the questions we ask and hence come up with better questions. That is one area of philosophy: Philosophy of Science. This asks questions like: what is science? What is science for? How should science be done? How do we tell good science from bad science? Who should pay for science? Is science a good thing? Are there questions science should not ask? And so on ... As for the rest. Too many random questions. They need separate threads in the appropriate part of the forum. If you see The Philosopher on the road, kill him.

What is the mathematically expressible value of a poem? That is pretty meaningless.

So we can only conclude that you are unable to provide any justification for the anisotropies supporting your religious beliefs. Because they don't. Nope. That isn't how it works.

You still haven't said what this "information" is or why it supports your religious beliefs. I am having to guess what you are referring to and, as far as I can tell, it contradicts your faith-based claims. You need to stop making snide, cryptic comments and explain why evidence that the Earth is moving through the universe supports your religious belief that it is stationary. That really doesn't make much sense. You might as well claim that getting a speeding ticket proves you were parked by the side of road. It is your job to support your pseudoscientific claims.

Name that fallacy.

Then it can't be infinite. How can a point, which is small, be infinite? It is like saying you have an ant that is the size of an elephant. And it is grey. And has trunk. And big ears. And four legs. Therefore, it is an elephant, not an an ant. You can believe what you like. It obviously has nothing to do with science.

I'm not going to watch a video. If you have some information to provide, just do it. But, as the comments here make clear, you are, as I guessed, talking about the anisotropies in the CMB. I can't imagine how deluded you would have to be to think that evidence that we are not symmetrically placed with regard to the CMB means that we are centrally located. That can only be interpreted as meaning we are not in a special place and are moving away from any place that we were before (which probably wasn't special anyway).

I think you need to give us some reason to do this. So far you sound like just another crackpot.

Then you have changed the definition of "moment". At which point the discussion becomes meaningless because how am I supposed to now what any of your words mean. You might as well say a second is a year long. It is meaningless.

The fact you have only made vague reference to the CMB rather than specific data. I gather you are referring to the anisotropy. I fail to see how much his supports your faith. If the Earth were in the centre I would expect it to be isotropic. The fact it isn’t show we are moving relative to the CMB so if we were in the centre in the past, we aren’t anymore.

You seem to have skimmed over the “if they are right” when declaring this to be a fact. Nope. That is probably why no one believes in your delusions.

Then it isn’t a moment, is it.

Why? That is a complete non sequitur. What does “infinite now” even mean? There is no blue yesterday. Makes about as much sense. It has a sound theoretical basis and is supported by evidence. So why you think it is “misguiding” is beyond me. And irrelevant.

Not everything is relative.

Stopping hijacking doesn't mean start posting questions in the wrong place. It means don't post them in someone else's thread about something else. Start your own thread in the right place. How hard is that. You have always been stronger on unsupported claims than questions.

A pretty cool simulation of everything in orbit around the Earth: http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1983-001A And an article about it here: https://www.universetoday.com/138981/this-is-the-coolest-everything-thats-orbiting-the-earth-right-now/